I'm about to sell me 100 2.8L just because I can sell it for a few more bucks than what I paid for it.

Initially I was planning to buy the Sigma 85 1.4 BUT a photographer in the shop told me that the L glass and the 4 stop IS would be better + macro, ALSO that the Sigma would lose value much more than the Canon.

What I noticed is that autofocus in sometimes hunts a lot, but nail it most of the time. I am using the limiter now after reading and it seems to get better. I also used it in an exhibition shooting and behaved quite well, I like color and sharpness.

Any other suggestion?

Canon 50 1.8 II

Well I bought this one because of the price, but the AF hunts a lot...

Wonder if I should sell it and get the 40 2.8?

Canon 24-105L

Well, I feel something is missing like sharpness and AF accuracy. Maybe I got spoiled with 100L. But again I don't know if the 24-70 2.8 lacking IS would be a substitute, I think IS really makes a difference as I never use tripod. I don't really think the 24-70 F4 would give me something substantially better.

I think this is the tougher to pick a replacement for.

Canon 70-200 F4 IS or F2.8 II?

Can anyone provide some pictures shot with both showing a clear advantage towards the 2.8 II? I really wonder if the price and weight is justified.